GREAT QUESTIONS If it can't do that then there is NO point starting.
I'm gonna look at that first, now. tx, J. On Thursday, 31 August 2017 18:04:17 UTC+2, Mark S. wrote: > > I'm skeptical about the hard-copy or PDF virtual hard-copy. > > You could make a couple pages using conventional CSS/TW markup and then > see if it prints out like you want. I think you might find that getting > page breaks to work reasonably is challenging. > > Good luck, > Mark > > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 8:38:28 AM UTC-7, @TiddlyTweeter wrote: >> >> Ciao Mark S. >> >> Thanks for GOOD questions. >> >> For movie scripts outputs MUST follow the format to have any chance. The >> spec is precise. This is why you must have access to a physical print-out >> to mail that follows the convention, NOT a GUESS. OR an exactly laid out >> PDF could do. >> >> I think TW can do that natively. But it needs thought yet. >> >> Josiah >> >> On Thursday, 31 August 2017 17:09:00 UTC+2, Mark S. wrote: >>> >>> Working out what you want in a parser in terms of inputs and outputs is >>> a good idea. >>> >>> I'm wondering what the point of this exercise would be? How would you >>> use the outputs? My experience with all things HTML is that it doesn't >>> print out reliably. So you probably couldn't depend on it to produce >>> physical manuscripts. So, unless you could convince >>> directors/actors/reviewers to read scripts on their tablets (hmm, maybe >>> they already do this?) what would be the benefit of using TW? >>> >>> Have fun, >>> Mark >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 6:17:48 AM UTC-7, @TiddlyTweeter wrote: >>>> >>>> TonyM >>>> >>>> The aim is implicitly voiced in the other thread this emerged from ... >>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiddlywiki/9Lf0YHfMUZk ... but >>>> it needs work to get it optimised for TW, IMO. >>>> >>>> Looking at Fountain <https://fountain.io/syntax>, that thread deals >>>> with its markup system for screenplays--I think it could be simplified for >>>> TW a lot. >>>> >>>> The UNDERLYING ISSUE is whether a "deep level" Javascript parser *(and >>>> likely a new "content type") *is needed OR whether you can get away >>>> with a more surface level set of regular expressions. The RegEx I can >>>> sorta >>>> cope with. The Javascript I can't. >>>> >>>> The BASIC markup I'm thinking is only this ... >>>> >>>> :x >>>> >>>> Each LINE started by a colon and a letter code is parsed and wrapped in >>>> different CSS classes. >>>> >>>> Right now I'm trying to establish the tech needs for this. >>>> >>>> PMario opined it wasn't possible without JavaScript coding. >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> Josiah >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, 31 August 2017 14:57:20 UTC+2, TonyM wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Just a question. Why build a parser when there are ways to parse the >>>>> content in a tiddlywiki already. I would have thought What is it you want >>>>> to achieve is best voiced first. >>>>> >>>>> Ok, maybe I don't get it but I expect the same could be said for >>>>> theatrical script writing as well unless it is critical to import a >>>>> different markup in which case you could work on the import and export >>>>> process instead. >>>>> >>>>> Food for thought? >>>>> >>>>> Otherwise clueless >>>>> Tony >>>>> >>>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/1cd155c9-ea37-4dc2-8fbc-114c84042978%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
